Not a Good Look for Ramaswamy

Vivek Ramaswamy, whom I once regarded as an interesting, if not creditable Republican politician for the future, has probably just blown the Ohio gubernatorial race and -- aside from any future appointments by Trump -- torpedoed his political future once and for all.

A new attack ad features the estranged mother of Democratic candidate for Ohio governor Amy Acton calling her a "liar" and defending her GOP opponent Vivek Ramaswamy. Acton's campaign and her brother denounced the ad as a "despicable low."

Acton's mother, Donna Arthur, whose husband was accused of raping Acton when she was a child, says in the spot, "It's not easy for a mother to say this, but Amy was a serious problem. She is a liar; she lies about her past."

...

[Acton's brother] said that after their stepfather, Cledith Arthur, was arrested and charged, he and Acton were removed from the Arthurs' custody and lived with their father.

"Our birth mother stayed married to Amy's rapist until he died," Stearns said. "This desperate, disgusting attack reveals exactly who Vivek Ramaswamy is at his core -- a pathetic excuse for a man who is willing to hurt anyone as long as it gets him what he wants." [bold added]

The couple fled Ohio for good when Arthur was on bail, so he never faced charges.

This episode reminds me of Clayton Williams's election-costing remark in the 1990 Texas gubernatorial race, in which he crowned a series of gaffes with a "joke" likening rape to the weather. Williams had been leading in the polls. Unlike Williams then, Ramaswamy, was already behind.

I am old enough to remember when Republicans often said that character matters in an elected official, and I agree. Even if, for the sake of argument, Acton were a "serial fabulist," as the Ramaswamy campaign insists, this was obviously not the way to address the issue if indeed there was a good one. Furthermore, if the attack was not desperate and disgusting, it certainly makes Ramaswamy look that way.

That is a bad look, and will fail to help Ramaswamy establish himself as different from the corrupt dwellers of the moral sewer that is MAGA.

I have not followed the Ohio race at all, but if Williams lost Texas with his remark, I think it will be a miracle if Ramaswamy wins Ohio now.

-- CAV

Another Warnock in Mississippi?

In the New York Times, E.J. Dionne asks, "Could Mississippi Elect Its First Black Senator Since Reconstruction?"

While Scott Colom, the candidate in question, is not a minister, the piece notes that he is quite religious, and he reminds me a bit of Raphael Warnock (D-GA), and James Talarico -- who is polling ahead of the charisma-challenged, corrupt James Paxton, whom Trump hand-picked to get rid of the quite electable incumbent, John Cornyn.

Donald Trump, aided by the spinelessness of a party that should have at least tried to keep him under control, has made what might have been unthinkable only a few years ago into a distinct possibility.

This he has achieved by (1) adopting unpopular and foolish economic policies that have hit Americans in the wallet; and (2) pandering to racists on top of demanding state legislators gerrymander their voting districts to eliminate Democratic seats.

The former will fail to motivate fiscal conservatives -- and the latter will strongly motivate traditionally Democratic constituencies -- to show up to vote.

This is doubly bad news for Republicans in Mississippi.

First, here's a taste of the position the incumbent finds herself in:

They form the core of his critique of Ms. Hyde-Smith, whom he sometimes refers to as "Cindy High Prices." With inflation a central issue everywhere, she gave him an unexpected opening when a local television interviewer asked her about the rising price of beef. She replied, "You know you have so many proteins to choose from." [bold added]

This is even less inspiring than Your daughter doesn't need 30 dolls for Christmas, coming as it does from the political party that once owned the economy as an issue.

Second, the non-Republican elephant in the room in Mississippi, demographics, can easily kick in to make the upset happen:

There is hard math behind Mr. Colom's thinking. Mississippi Democrats start with a strong base in the Black community, which represents 37 percent of the population, the largest share of any state. The longstanding rule of thumb, as Mr. Colom's pollster Margie Omero told me, is that a Democrat can win by securing high turnout among Black voters and roughly a quarter of the white vote. [bold added]

To this native Mississippian, the piece makes interesting reading, although Dionne gets one thing partly wrong:

Senator Warnock, first elected in a dramatic December runoff after President Joe Biden's 2020 victory, alluded to the not-so-behind-the-scenes battle over whether national Democrats should add Mississippi to the growing list of states in which they're investing. "Believe me when I say Mississippi has the ingredients of our win in Georgia, and then some," he said. "I'm also pushing the Democratic Party to invest more in the South. I think the Democratic Party fails to invest in the South at its own peril."

If by invest, he means, fund candidates, he's correct to cite Warnock. If he also means, send national figures there or play up progressive messaging, he's wrong. Voters in Mississippi are more socially conservative (and religious) in general, and this includes blacks. If national Democrats come in sounding like wokescolds, they will alienate many of these voters for various reasons.

It's already an uphill battle for Colom: If there is any doubt that he is anything other than a traditional Democrat, he will lose.

-- CAV

McCarthy on Trump's 'Aid and Comfort'

I completely agree with Andrew McCarthy, who writes at National Review, that Trump's likely interference with Ukraine's access to Starlink/Starshield technology and illegal lifting of economic sanctions against Russia merit immediate Congressional attention.

Not only was this ["energy ceasefire"] agreement non-existent; it was patently rigged against Ukraine. For three days Zelensky heeded Trump's warning to cease attacks on Russian refineries, but Russia continued pounding Ukraine's electrical grid and other energy infrastructure. When Zelensky cried foul, the Trump administration countered that the "energy ceasefire" only applied to oil refineries. As Trump officials knew, Ukraine has no operational oil refineries, Russia having bombed the last one four years ago; by contrast, Russia has dozens of refineries. That is, the "energy ceasefire" was insidiously designed to prevent Ukraine from conducting the kind of strikes that most deter Russian aggression, yet enable Putin's continued obliteration of the energy infrastructure Ukrainians need to survive the imminent cold season.

Now, we have what Congress -- Republicans and Democrats, together -- should regard as the last straw.

...

Coincidentally, while [Starshield] was compromised, Putin's forces conducted some of the most intensive aerial attacks against Ukrainian territory since the war began, firing 39 ballistic missiles and 128 Shahed drones, mainly at the greater Kyiv and Kharkiv areas. At least nine civilians were killed, and many others wounded. Zelensky says 26 power facilities and four oil and gas facilities were damaged. More than 600,000 people lost power, for the most part, in the capital.

According to Musk, the restrictions on Starshield had to be caused by the Defense Department "and ultimately POTUS." The government, not SpaceX, owns and controls the system. Initially (i.e., after the devastating Russian attacks), Trump officials denied that the White House had anything to do with the restrictions. As of this writing (on Thursday evening), neither the president, nor his staff, nor the Pentagon has responded to Musk's statement. Reuters, however, has reported that the order to impose the restrictions came from inside the White House. (The report, behind the paywall, relies on two U.S. government officials and one official from a Western government, none of whom is identified.) [bold added]

The Republicans are at best, only cautiously pushing back on this. They already deserve to have their heads handed to them come November and that may well come to pass: Perhaps a Democratic Congress will instead finally hold Putin's sock-puppet accountable.

-- CAV

Four Wins

A Friday Hodgepodge

Whenever possible, I list three wins at the end of each day. Here are a few from a recent review of my planner.

***

1. Contrary to how things usually work out for me, I managed to celebrate Columbus Day this year. One of the things I enjoyed was a guided tour of the Abita Springs Brewery, who craft Andygator, one of my favorite local beers.

2. I love poached eggs and my son loves hard boiled eggs. I hate guesswork and messes, so I used to buy his eggs pre-made and enjoy poached eggs only at restaurants.

Intrigued by the mention at Ask a Manager of Dash egg cookers, I looked at some reviews and bought one.

On top of being stupid simple to use, this egg cooker hits the supposedly impossible trifecta of good, cheap, and fast. What a find!

3. Back in August, I underwent an operation for the third time to relieve a painful condition that interfered with my vision.

The third time was the charm, although I will have to stay on top of an underlying condition to prevent a recurrence. That is a small price to pay for the relief, and to preserve my vision.

4. It was my father-in-law's birthday. I'd had a busy day and was at home getting ready to cook something complicated.

"Did the kids say 'Happy Birthday' to Grandpa?" my wife texted.

I already had done so myself, but was indeed about to drop the ball.

My mind briefly flashed back to yesteryear, and having to round them up, and place the call. None of that is especially difficult, but I was overwhelmed at the moment and not in the mood.

And then I remembered: My kids aren't toddlers anymore!

So I spotted my son, who was downstairs, and told him to find his sister and call Grandpa to wish him a happy birthday.

Problem solved.

-- CAV

People Will Always Talk

In addition to reminding me of a Seinfeld episode, a question at Miss Manners also helped me appreciate personal growth in an area that used to cause me unnecessary worry.

The writer is a nail salon customer who can't seem to shake the feeling that she is being talked about in the native language of the staff, and asks what to do. The nut of Judith Martin's reply is:

[Y]ou could simply acknowledge that people can talk among themselves, without eavesdroppers assuming ill will.

And even if they were gossiping about her, who cares, so long as it isn't so obvious as to be rude. It's just a business transaction.

When I was young, a similar issue came up for me right after college, and a friendly acquaintance accidentally helped me see I was making a mountain out of a molehill. We were talking about something else entirely, when he shrugged off something silly someone had said about him, saying People talk about other people all the time.

That may sound like stating the obvious, but it was a lightbulb going off for me, and helped me achieve anough psychological distance from what I was worried about to think about the issue more objectively. Soon after, the kind of scenario that caused the pedicure customer so much angst stopped bothering me.

Reputation still matters, of course, but whether to be concerned about someone speaking well or ill of you is highly context-dependent along multiple axes.

The writer admits to wanting to remain a customer, so the very low bar of being treated with a reasonable degree of courtesy seems to have been met, and she is happy with what she has paid for. I'm a little surprised she is even uncomfortable, but that wouldn't have been true of me many years ago.

-- CAV

Trump's Omar Raid Is a Gift to the Left

President Trump's DHS raided Ilhan Omar's (D-MN) Washington residence Monday morning, thereby placing her in a good position to play up her victimhood (imagined and now real), fund-raise, and galvanize her base.

I am no fan of the antisemitic, socialist congresswoman, but I strongly object to this raid, which is an obvious, hamfisted attempt to intimidate a political opponent.

But don't take my word for that. Both stories linked above note that it is unusual for the Department of Justice to take such actions within 60 days of an election, the first elaborating:

As The Associated Press notes, "The Justice Department has historically sought to avoid public investigative actions involving a candidate within 60 days of a primary or general election." That norm is observed precisely to avoid abusing the law enforcement power of the federal government for political purposes -- and to avoid generating suspicions that legitimate investigations are political. [bold added]

.The piece continues, stating the obvious:

That the Trump administration is choosing to shun that norm gives away the game. Furthermore the fact that since last year Trump has been saying he wants Omar out of the country and that he thinks she shouldn't be allowed to serve in Congress is a clear signal about potential motives.

This source is an editorial in MS Now, a left-wing outlet, but consider the following:

... While [Trump] has effectively singled out white South Africans for entry into the country as refugees, he describes Somali immigrants as "garbage" and "low-IQ people" who ought to be kicked out. Trump sees trying to oust Omar, a Somali American, from Congress (or the country) as a way to deliver red meat to the most extreme elements of his base. In his comments on the raid Monday, Trump said, "I think she's a terrible person, she's just a complainer. She comes from a country that is a non-country. Then she comes over here and complains about our constitution." The implication is that Trump seems to think Omar's specific national origin should bar her from having the full rights of a citizen -- and he appears offended that she exercises them so confidently. [links in original]

This all follows "The reality, it should be easy to deduce, is that Trump sees Omar as a convenient target for his white nationalist agenda." Trump is plainly a bigot and a xenophobe. The only debatable part of this sentence is whether he has an actual agenda for anything, or is enabling others in his orbit who do.

In any event, as someone who has called himself a fiscal conservative in the past, I have seen and been subjected to smears for "racism" by leftists, who eagerly package-deal capitalism with racism in order to discredit the former.

Donald Trump is not only a threat to longstanding American political norms, he and his cronies are a gift to such people that will keep on giving.

Consider, for example, a recent juvenile remark by his heir apparent, JD Vance, which is par for this course:

"Trump, Vance & GOP could offer TX voters solutions for the affordability crisis, healthcare, immigration, Epstein accountability & ending the costly/deadly Iran war," political commentator Andy Ostroy wrote Tuesday. "Or, they can just claim Talarico is gay & obsesses over 'trans kids & drag queens'..."

New York Times contributing opinion writer Matthew Yglesias also weighed in.

"Having made inroads with various traditionally blue constituencies in 2024, Republicans have spent the fall telling everyone that they really do hate gay people and all non-white immigrants," he said in an X post. [bold added]

As he has done with his foreign "policy" of insulting friendly nations and alienating allies, Trump and his cronies are destroying their own credibility, that of their party, and that of anyone who has ever been associated with conservatism or libertarianism. On top of that, the left will happily take the fact that he is living up to all their dishonest stereotypes of "Republicans" and run with it.

The damage Trump is doing to this country, the cause of liberty, and those who ally with him -- especially those who do so only out of desperation -- is enormous and will take a very long time to recover from.

-- CAV

Remedial Economics RE: Price Caps

At Reason, Veronique de Rugy warns us that we should be terrified of price caps.

Regulars here will already know that this is an immoral and impractical idea that would distort markets and lead to shortages if put into practice.

Same regulars might not know how popular this stupid idea is, though:

A new Wall Street Journal poll finds remarkable bipartisan support for government limits on prices, with 93 percent of Democrats and 83 percent of Republicans supporting capping prescription drug prices. Nearly four in five voters support capping credit card interest rates at 10 percent. And large majorities favor capping child care charges for working families. [bold added]

This news should be a clarion call for anyone with half a clue about economics.

Fortunately, de Rugy follows this up with a few brief paragraphs that might help any reasonably intelligent, thoughtful adult who isn't up to speed on economics realize why this idea is even worse than it is popular:

Consider credit cards. A 10 percent interest rate cap sounds lovely. Many Americans pay twice that. Why not simply tell banks that's the limit? Because an interest rate isn't an arbitrary number. It is the price of credit that reflects funding costs, administrative expenses, and, not least, expected default risks.

Congress can cap the rate, but it can't cap the risk. When the price a lender can charge falls below what the risk costs, lending stops. Lenders turn down applicants, cut credit limits, and close accounts. The borrowers the cap was supposed to protect still need the money. They end up at the payday lender or the pawn shop instead. In other words, interest rate caps hurt the economically vulnerable people they are supposed to help. [bold added]

De Rugy does the same quick analyses with two other areas that have politicians talking about price controls. Perhaps these walkthroughs will help people understand that price controls lead to shortages.

The piece is far from perfect, most glaringly in that it takes for granted the flawed idea that self-interest is predatory. This limits the usefulness of the piece to serving only as an economic lesson, although it is clear enough that the various price-capping measures out there will, in fact, harm the people they're supposed to be helping.

Price caps are not just stupid, they violate individual rights and, as such, they are also a moral outrage. But getting the word out about the former can be a decent place to start.

-- CAV